DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 12-20) in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228)
Regarding claim 12, Yamanashi et al. discloses “a laser processing apparatus” (figs.1-2) that “irradiates an irradiation area” (fig.1 shows the area accommodates the workpiece W) with “laser light” (fig.2, the dahs line shows the laser light pass through optical element 31 and 34 toward a workpiece) to process “a workpiece” (fig.1, W), the laser processing apparatus comprising:
“a laser light deflection section” (32) that deflects the laser light in accordance with “a predetermined processing setting” (the section 32 includes optical elements 323 and 321 with a predetermined processing setting where the optical elements at predetermined locations); and
“a housing” (30) that accommodates “the laser light deflection section” (32),
wherein “the housing” (10) includes
“a first accommodation section” (annotated fig.2) provided with “an optical member” (34) that transmits “the laser light” (the dash line) deflected by “the laser light deflection section” (32) and directed to “the irradiation area” (toward workpiece W), and
“a second accommodation section” (annotated fig.2) annotated fig.2 shows a second accommodation section protrude toward the irradiation area from the optical member).
Yamanashi et al. is silent regarding a second accommodation section obtained by forming at least a part of a periphery of the optical member.
Sato et al. teaches “a second accommodation section obtained by forming at least a part of a periphery of the optical member” (annotated fig.24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. with Sato et al., by adding Sato et al.’s optical member support to Yamanashi et al.’s optical lens, to provide seal support for optical lens so that dust and debris generated during laser processing does not come into the laser system.
Regarding claim 14, Yamanashi et al. discloses “the housing has an exit surface on which an exit window having the optical member is formed, and the irradiation area is covered with the exit surface” (Sato et al., annotated fig.24 shows the interior surface holds forms an opening or an exit window for accommodate the optical member 19b).
PNG
media_image1.png
1614
1120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1434
1132
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228) as applied in claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 2003/0192867).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses “the first accommodation section accommodates a laser light output section that generates the laser light” (annotated fig.2) to be deflected by “the laser light deflection section” (32).
Modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) is silent regarding the second accommodation section accommodates a heat sink thermally coupled to the laser light output section.
Yamazaki et al. (‘867) teaches “the second accommodation section” ((annotated fig.3) accommodates “a heat sink” (20 pointed at the heat sink) thermally coupled to “the laser light output section” (the region from about 23a to the nozzle tip 26a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Yamazaki et al. (‘867), by adding Yamazaki et al. (‘867)’s heat sink to Yamanashi et al. (‘274) second accommodation section, to facilitate dissipating the heat to prevent the laser device from overheating.
PNG
media_image3.png
1476
1124
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228) as applied in claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Rominger et al. (US 2015/0196974 A1)
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses a mark arranged to correspond to a position of the irradiation area is provided on an outer surface of the housing.
Rominger et al. teaches “a mark arranged to correspond to a position of the irradiation area is provided on an outer surface of the housing” ([0016], i.e., To simplify the securing in a desired position along the laser beam axis, markings or a scale may be provided on the laser processing head, more specifically on the housing portion which is used for guiding. Examiner noted that the marking or scale on the housing is capable of using as a visual indicator at a position at irradiation area since the tubular portion 12 along the laser beam axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Rominger et al., by adding Rominger et al.’s marking or scale on the housing to Yamanashi et al.’s device housing, to provide visual guidance for the optical device.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228) as applied in claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Noh et al. (US 20220023976)
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the housing has an open surface that is at least partially opened to lead to the optical member.
Noh et al. teaches “the housing has an open surface that is at least partially opened to lead to the optical member” (the housing 55 has an opening surface 551 hat is at least partially opened to lead to the optical member 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Noh et al., by adding Noh et al.’s open surface 511 to Yamanashi et al (‘274) device, to control laser beam LB into the laser housing so that laser beam does not irradiate on the workpiece (para.0092) as taught by Noh et al.
Regarding claim 17, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses “the open surface is provided with a cover member capable of opening the open surface” (Noh et al., the opening surface 551 is provided with cover member 53).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228) as applied in claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20130334739).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses “the workpiece is made of a sheet-like film” (fig.1, item W. MPEP 2115)
“an area irradiated with the laser light corresponding to the irradiation area” (fig.1 shows the irradiation area irradiated with laser light) 36).
Miller et al. teaches “workpiece conveyed along a predetermined movement path; the irradiation area out of the movement path” (fig.5A shows the workpiece conveyed along a predetermined movement path; Fig.5A shows the irradiation area out of the movement path (at least the downstream movement path at around 54a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Miller et al., to replace Yamanashi et al.’s workpiece positioner with Miller et al.’s workpiece transporter, to allow process a long piece of material continuously.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanashi et al. (US 20200122274) in view of Sato et al. (US 2019/0190228) as applied in claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20130334739).
Regarding claim 19, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses “a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member” (fig.2 shows the laser which is at the center line passing through a central portion of the optical member).
Modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) is silent regarding the workpiece is made of a sheet-like film that is placed around a conveyance roller and conveyed in a longitudinal direction by rotation of the conveyance roller, and a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member is offset to an upstream side or a downstream side in a conveyance direction of the workpiece with respect to an apex of the conveyance roller on a side closer to the optical member.
Miller et al. teaches “the workpiece is made of a sheet-like film” (54a and abstract) that is placed around “a conveyance roller” (72) and conveyed in “a longitudinal direction” (arrow 78 shows a longitudinal direction) by rotation of “the conveyance roller” (72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Miller et al., by replacing Yamanashi et al. (‘274)’s workpiece holder with Miller et al.’s conveyor system, to supply different type of workpiece for laser processing (abstract) as taught by Miller et al.
The combination of Yamanashi et al. (‘274) and Miller et al. would meet the claim limitation of “a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member is offset to an upstream side or a downstream side in a conveyance direction of the workpiece with respect to an apex of the conveyance roller on a side closer to the optical member” because Yamanashi et al. (‘274) teaches a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member (fig.2 shows a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member. Figs.1-2 show the center line can be substantially perpendicular to the workpiece). Yamanashi et al. (‘274)’s laser head 35 can be at Mille et al.’s laser head 90 location so that “a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member” (as explained above) “is offset to an upstream side or a downstream side in a conveyance direction of the workpiece” (Millar, the center line of 90 toward which is offset an upstream side at around 54b in a conveyance direction of the workpiece) with respect to “an apex of the conveyance roller on a side closer to the optical member” (an apex of the conveyance roller 72 on a side closer to the optical member (Yamanashi et al.’s laser head includes the optical member as explained above)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Yamanashi et al. (‘274) with Miller et al., by replacing Yamanashi et al. (‘274)’s workpiece holder with Miller et al.’s conveyor system, to supply different type of workpiece for laser processing (abstract) as taught by Miller et al.
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamanashi et al. (‘274) discloses “the center line passing through the central portion of the optical member” (as explained in claim 19 above, Yamanashi et al. (‘274) teaches the center line passing through a central portion of the optical member (fig.2 shows a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member. Figs.1-2 show the center line can be substantially perpendicular to the workpiece Yamanashi et al. (‘274)’s laser head 35 can be at Mille et al.’s laser head 90 location so that “a center line passing through a central portion of the optical member”) “is offset to one of the upstream side and the downstream side in the conveyance direction” (Miller et al., shows the laser head 90 is offset to upstream side at around 54b) in which “an inclination of the workpiece with respect to a plane orthogonal to the center line is smaller” (Miller et al., fig.5A shows an inclination of workpiece 54b with respect to a plane (i.e., imaginary plane) hold the workpiece at around 98 orthogonal to the center line is smaller (hence, the angle between 54b and 54a) which is smaller than 90 degree).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights